The usual suspects [Democratic leadership and their compadres in the media] seem bound and determined to make an issue of the fact that the President of the United States actually lived up to the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution.

As John at Powerline notes even Carter and Clinton were authorized to use warrantless surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. But the D behind their name stood for Democrat and not dictator and those silly rules that must be applied to conservatives like George Bush simply do not apply the bearers of the civil liberties torch.

No, their new motto, is Terrorists Have Rights Too.

The terrorists we are talking about here are folks like Zacarius Moussaoui who is awaiting trial right now.

He might have been apprehended sooner and his computer files with information relating to the September 11 attacks might have been investigated if law enforcement had been able to get a FISA warrant. It seems they tried and failed.

Dots were not connected. Remember the dots that everyone from Moore to Gore was ranting about? Well it seems we know now that if the Democrats have their way the next Moussaoui will not be caught in time either and the dots will go right on being unconnected, floating about in their own insulated little civil liberties haven.

Given a choice do most Americans want the President to do everything in his power to protect the public safety or do they want a bunch of hate mongering politicians and partisan media personalities to put us all at risk just to put the screws to George W. Bush?

Are they really stupid enough to believe that most Americans think they are big and bad and brave for trashing Bush and pandering to AlQaida? It seems so. In fact 62% of the people in this country want to see the Patriot Act renewed and there is Harry Reid bragging that he killed it.

116
comments:

(2005-12-21) — Al Qaeda announced today it would relocate its international headquarters to an unnamed U.S. city in order to take advantage of espionage-free local, and state-to-state, phone calls.

“Al Qaeda will thrive in the land of liberty,” said an unnamed spokesman on a 30-minute pre-recorded DVD. “We’re still shopping for a primary location with great access to transportation and, Allah be praised, good public schools.”

New York Times vs. History and the LawIt is quite remarkable that the New York Times has launched a campaign to persuade the American people that the President does not have the power to order warrantless electronic intercepts for national security purposes.No court, as far as I have been able to determine, has ever so ruled.

As noted below, the federal courts have consistently held the precise opposite of the position urged by the Times, as in this article from tomorrow's paper, titled"Cheney Defends Eavesdropping Without Warrants."

Has any administration ever backed the position now urged by the Times?It doesn't appear so. Matt Drudge points out that the Clinton administration engaged in warrantless wiretapping.Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick wrote that the President "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes." That is an accurate summary of the holding of every federal court decision that has addressed the issue.

On May 23, 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed an executive order that said, "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

It's not only Democrats who have concerns. Hagel and Snowe joined Feinstein, Levin, and Wyden in calling for a joint investigation by the Senate judiciary and intelligence panels into the classified program.

Specter the chair of the Judiciary Committee wants to hold hearings.

As for Moussaoui the clowns at FBI HQ in DC didn't just fail to get a FISA warrant, they apparently went as far as manipulating the evidence to quash the investigation and never even applied for a warrant if you can believe this WorldNetDaily article.

BTW FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, a special agent and Minneapolis chief division counsel, who tried to get her superiors in DC to get the damn warrant – voted one of Time magazine's 2002 persons of the year - left the FBI and is a Democratic candidate for a US House seat in MN.

The clowns most responsible for screwing up the pre 9/11 Moussaoui investigation? Bush gave one a presidential citation that comes with a large cash bonus in 2003 and the other a promotion to head a big city field office. Those are just a couple of instances that form a pattern in this administration of rewarding incompetence or worse. FBI watchdog Senator Chuck Grassley was not amused.

Carter and Clinton did it too! Uh no. Hate to burst your bubble but here are some actual facts. From thinkprogress.org again:

"What Drudge says:

Clinton, February 9, 1995: “The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order”

What Clinton actually signed:

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) [50 U.S.C. 1822(a)] of the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section.

That section requires the Attorney General to certify is the search will not involve “the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person.” That means U.S. citizens or anyone inside of the United States.

The entire controversy about Bush’s program is that, for the first time ever, allows warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and other people inside of the United States. Clinton’s 1995 executive order did not authorize that.

Drudge pulls the same trick with Carter.

What Drudge says:

Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: “Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order.”

What Carter’s executive order actually says:

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved."

What you need to understand is that we ended the great right-wing conspiracy when Clinton left office. What you should be worried about is that the whole group involved in that conspiracy is not out to get all Americans....just YOU. Watch out, we are everywhere. Probably under your bed right now. And those voices in your head? Implants....HA HA HA

"And there is this as well (which the Truong decision does not note): Even in ordinary criminal cases, where the Supreme Court has held that a warrant is presumptively required by the Fourth Amendment, it has also long recognized an exception for what are known as "exigent circumstances." In other words, when the government is facing what it reasonably views as a now-or-never chance to catch the bad guys, it is not required to obtain a warrant."

Mark, you give new meaning to "tedious". This case is OVER--on the basis of inherent war powers, if not several narrower case-law precedents.

Have your hearings--fine. Try, though, to work toward the day when your bunch may have enough sense to realize that all this whining is just in the end going to cost you votes, votes, and more votes--as it confirms precisely what the entire electorate is inexorably moving toward understanding--that you guys are total hypocrites, opportunists, small-minded process-servers, unreliable, devious, and both unable and unwilling to protect the nation.

Let's have some more 911 Commissions, too--now that voters are catching onto the tactic--hearings so that you can say you "had to have" hearings, so that you can cherry-pick a few quotes while ignoring the contexts and conclusions--the idea that these witch-hunts "can't hurt" the out-party is beginning to disprove itself.

Even today's NYT article Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls seems to backing away - at least temporarily - from the stance that a law was broken. While the article talks about some unidentified US to US calls that were intercepted it clearly states, "was apparently accidental, and was caused by technical glitches at the National Security Agency in determining whether a communication was in fact 'international.'"

But more interesting the NYT said, "Eavesdropping on communications between two people who are both inside the United States is prohibited under Mr. Bush's order allowing some domestic surveillance." Note that they did not say the word "illegal" in this sentence.

Another interesting paragraph is, "But in at least one instance, someone using an international cellphone was thought to be outside the United States when in fact both people in the conversation were in the country. Officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, would not discuss the number of accidental intercepts, but the total is thought to represent a very small fraction of the total number of wiretaps that Mr. Bush has authorized without getting warrants. In all, officials say the program has been used to eavesdrop on as many as 500 people at any one time, with the total number of people reaching perhaps into the thousands in the last three years."

They finally admit that a small number of people have been targeted, and that maybe ONE time it was used on a US to US call - maybe ONE time. Geez...give us a break.

Last night on Nightline, good ole Jonathen Turley said that not only were these searches definitely criminal but, since Bush ordered them, were also impeachable offenses. That's going out on quite a limb considering other legal opinions I have seen suggest differently. The Times & Co. will be pushing this story full bore for a while.

Close your eyes and cover your ears and all the bad news will just go away? Is that how it works for you guys? Look I can understand not wanting to face facts. But sometimes ya just gotta suck it up and look reality square in the face.

This is bad and it's going to get worse. It's not about winning votes, the way things are going we're going to get all the votes we need by default if not by forfeit anyway. That's not necessarily a good thing, I want a strong opposition to keep my guys on their toes. But the kleptocrats in your party, and I don't use that term loosely, are sinking it. The rest of us are just trying to make sure they don't take the country down with it.

Markg8,"But sometimes ya just gotta suck it up and look reality square in the face."

I don't know what it si like on your planet "Markie no mates",but here on Earth the rest of us can see this as a vote loser for the Democrats.The electorate are going to be really impressed that the Democrats put the rights of the head hackers above the lives of Americans.You might see it as a Constitutional issue,or simply a bureaucratic jobsworths exercise,getting the paperwork in order.Boy will you learn!

morgan: you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. If you voted for Bush you're not a Democrat regardless of your registration. You are what is commonly known as a fool.

Buddy: yes it would be easier for Dems if they tried winning elections by posturing like tough guys and using simple phrases to please the likes of you but it ain't gonna happen. We don't kowtow to the lowest common denominater.

"Mommy, mommy, I'm scared, that zombie guy just killed the patriot!"would seem to be the RNC talking point against Reid.

So, since your Weather underground threats a day or two ago, you've changed your mind, and are no longer posturing as a tough guy?

Lastly, you, too, are not a Democrat, regardless of your registration. FDR, HST, JFK, and currently Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, are the real Democrats, and none of them would in their wildest dreams accept support from your bunch.

I know this much: the American voters are overwhelmingly on the side of President Bush on this matter. God help the Democrats if they campaign against him on this issue. I predict a 60% victory margin for the Republican candidates in 2006. Democrat candidates will be safe only in the bluest of areas.

Har--just saw Reid excoriating the lack of a sense of shame in the nation's "multimillionaires"...wonder who booted his language up to "multi"? Must be those tens of thousands of new millionaires the economy has created in the party.

Michael Barone (yes, THAT Michael Barone) just said --in all seriousness--on a tv interview that, judging from the Dean & Pelosi act wrt Iraq, and now this SpyGate laugher, that he is beginning to suspect there's a Rove mole high up in the Dem party, leading them out on one broken limb after another. His debate partner Eleanor Clift was in frame as he said this, and immediately started coloring up like a neon barber pole accidentally plugged into the 220V outlet.

vnj, that's the way I read the statute too --- at least as long as al Qaeda is a "foreign power" under §1801(a)(1-3). The USA v bin Laden decision also seems to think that, but Orin Kerr and some others seem to think that it's only a "foreign power" under 1801(a)(4), and so §1802 doesn't apply. And here's where being not-a-lawyer seems to hit.

Meanwhile, a sane Democrat lawyer who served in the Clinton administration supports President Bush's legal position on the post-9/11 electronic surveillance program.John Hinderaker wants a reply from the NYTimes reporters.

Had to laugh at John Hinderaker's letter to the NYT Doug. Wonder if he'll get a response? I suspect it will be that the reporters will stop publishing their email addresses...ooops too late! NSA already has them...lol

People like Mark are helping though. In spite of, or maybe because of, all the NYT hype, Rasmussen has the latest Bush approval rate at 47% - Up 3 points in two days. The disapproval rate is down to 51%. Keep up the good work Mark.

BTW --- for those who argue that you can find lawyers to defend either side of any issue I say, what's your point?

If there is no truth --- if the meaning of the law is whatever the loudest or highest paid elites say it is --- then let's drop all the high and mighty shouts of "law-breaker" and "impeach him."---Debates on fine points are a diversion.Never before have we wasted our time and efforts on such a banal exercise in time of War.

Since you asked...I will admit that I am a spying program. A super-secret one established by Wild Bill Donovan during WWII. Since then I have grown to a self thinking and biologically replicating entity. You never know where I will be next.

Speaking of Specter,One of the most chilling phrases that came out strong early on and is still around is:"Well, we'll find out when the Senate Committee (Specter) takes this up."As if the Senate, or Committees in general, ever arrive at the truth of a matter.

I kept my argument in the realm of 'what a bunch of dumbasses' because I am aware of my ignorance in this regard. I am not a lawyer.

Search and seizure laws always seem to be open to debate. Just look at the case in NYC when the ACLU argued that people going on the public transit system could not be searched. The public disagreed with that position too. People do not want to be blown up. Fancy that.

I think it is not only an argument between Democrats and Republicans, but between absolutists and pragmatists.

I agree with your approach. The legalities are a sidelight, it seems to me. This is primarily a political and practical issue.

I was only pointing out the pretty obvious truth that lawyers can be found on all sides of any question. In the last analysis in most trials the final judgment in matters of fact and justice, the jury has the final word.

In matters of high political drama, like this the public has the final word eventually.

I remember after the attacks on 9/11 we went through that whole public bitch fest and most people were not concerned with the state bugging some guy's phone, they were afraid of more attacks. In fact I would say they expected the state to bug some phones.

It could always be argued that the primary role of the state is to provide for the welfare of the people and to protect them from foreign enemies.

To most people the fact that the enemy might be here on a student visa or might even be a citizen is secondary to protecting the public.

Tim McVeigh was a citizen. So were at least a couple of the Yemini born terrorists arrested in NY a couple of years ago.

1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

What the Attorney General has to certify under that section is that the surveillance will not contain “the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party.” So again, no U.S. persons are involved."

Under section 1802 (A)(1)(a)(i):

the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;

Now if you look up 1801:

(a) “Foreign power” means—(1) a foreign government or any component thereof, whether or not recognized by the United States;(2) a faction of a foreign nation or nations, not substantially composed of United States persons;(3) an entity that is openly acknowledged by a foreign government or governments to be directed and controlled by such foreign government or governments;(4) a group engaged in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor;(5) a foreign-based political organization, not substantially composed of United States persons; or(6) an entity that is directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.(b) “Agent of a foreign power” means—(1) any person other than a United States person, who—(A) acts in the United States as an officer or employee of a foreign power, or as a member of a foreign power as defined in subsection (a)(4) of this section;(B) acts for or on behalf of a foreign power which engages in clandestine intelligence activities in the United States contrary to the interests of the United States, when the circumstances of such person’s presence in the United States indicate that such person may engage in such activities in the United States, or when such person knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of such activities or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in such activities; or(2) any person who—(A) knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence gathering activities for or on behalf of a foreign power, which activities involve or may involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;(B) pursuant to the direction of an intelligence service or network of a foreign power, knowingly engages in any other clandestine intelligence activities for or on behalf of such foreign power, which activities involve or are about to involve a violation of the criminal statutes of the United States;(C) knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism, or activities that are in preparation therefor, for or on behalf of a foreign power;(D) knowingly enters the United States under a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power or, while in the United States, knowingly assumes a false or fraudulent identity for or on behalf of a foreign power; or(E) knowingly aids or abets any person in the conduct of activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) or knowingly conspires with any person to engage in activities described in subparagraph (A), (B), or (C).

Notice that under 1801 (b)(2)(A, B or C) the definition is aimed at "any person", whether a US Person or not. Why didn't you quote the whole thing?

I believe it is fair to say that, following 9/11/2001, a significant majority of Americans fully expected, and support, the tapping of some phones, the bugging of some mosques and other gathering places, the profiling of airline passengers, the "leaning on" of some subjects of interrogation, and even the "disappearing" of some dangerous people.

There is no evidence to date, despite the MSM and Dem efforts to highlight every case, that any of those things have happened to any degree that the American public considers excessive. The moonbats are chewing on their tails.

par·a·noi·a (păr'ə-noi'ə)n. 1. A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason. 2. Extreme, irrational distrust of others.

Peety LOL it's a good thing you're not a spook. I don't know who Lawrence Vincent is but I think it's a safe bet he ain't the guy who calls himself Jesus General ya putz. The General is about my age and lives in Utah.

The old saying is true. You guys are as fun as a barrel full of monkeys. And about as smart.

So whaddya think spector? Are the CIFA boys just fans of the general or are they keepin tabs on him?

No one with the sense God gave lettuce really believes that Bush is a dictator.

look at Sheehan and Clooney and Moore and all these people out there making movies and writing books and getting rich off of trashing George Bush.

Not only are they not persecuted, they live like the won the freaking lottery. They are celibreties...now the pics I have seen of the Cultural Revolution in China and the Gulags in the USSR and Dachau..don't look anything like these guys and gals whooping it up at some gala where the catering costs more than I make in a decade.

Taking into account your lowly position on the ladder,a stain on the bottom rung,it is not that surprising that nobody has told you aboutPatriotboy - Jesus General.Don't even you know what you have joined?Rather apt for a fake apeman hominidviews.

So you point to an article showing the general won another award, Best Humor/Comics Blog category for the Best Weblog Awards — 2005. And that is supposed to prove what? Why don't you email him yourself and ask if he's Lawrence Vincent ya twit. If you get Buddy to help you write something halfway intelligent you might even get a mention in one of his posts.

And on that note folks I bid you adieu, I'm off for the holidays. Merry Fitzmas everybody!

Ah, I love how the enlightened, compassionate party of the big tent so mocks the deepest beliefs of a hundred or two million of their countrymen. It's so juvenile, so utterly skulled-out dumb, that, well, I can't think of how to finish this sentence.